If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post. To do so, click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please do not post any copyrighted images or content without permission from the owner of those images or content. If you are unsure if an image or content is copyright protected, do not post it. When posting images from Google's image search, be sure to utilize the ability to filter by Usage Rights. This is located under Tools > Usage Rights. Any materials that infringe on any owner's Intellectual Property rights will be promptly removed.

Namestnikov is, in a lot of ways, the exact kind of player you want at his price tag on a rebuilding team entering year one. He's a work ethic prototype, even if the points won't accumulate the way they did running shotgun to Kucherov and Stamkos. And he's ultimately an asset to be flipped, either this year or next before he's UFA eligible. In the interim he can give you great effort, if not good results, which can hopefully have a spillover effect on the young pups.

I think your point is a very good one, if not a little sad one.

Full disclosure FWIW — assuming it was mandatory that we had to trade Miller (and I was not "down with that" idea), I was nevertheless immediately pleased with what we got in the trade, based on what I''d seen of Namestnikov previously, which was not much. To this day I am wondering how much was Miller traded because of AV's ass-hattery or because of Miller's ass-hattery? And how much does the ass-hattery matter considering how well Miller contributed in the playoffs on the Tampa top line? But that's grit and tenacity lost and we have to move on.

But after his initial goal scoring in the first game or two, it seemed like Namestnikov fell off a cliff; a really disappointing finish to the season compared with Spooner.

But I did my little bit of research and I reopened my mind to the possibility that we are getting a player with some good upside. I just hope the players around him are talented enough and flourish, too.

Your point about him becoming an asset to be flipped. I'm sure it's true, I just hate-hate-hate looking at things that sanguinely before we've even had dance around the ballroom. But it is what it is and, of course, you are right, that it is most likely the reality down the road apiece.

I guess I have to remember to get unsentimental and remember hockey is a business and I better beware of getting attached to some players, even if I wind up taking a liking to them.

That said, I read your article on Blueshirt Banter I think, in which you opined that NHL's free agency system is broken. The article was more centered on something else, and that seemed to be a side-theme, but I hope you will do a soup-to-nuts piece here on why you think it's broken and what can be done to fix it. I can't put my finger on the provisions of the NHL byelaws that are "fekking it up" specifically, but when I see so many players of youthful value becoming RFAs, and so few of them ever actually moving, I get cranky cranky cranky. It's like that sliver of hope is a mirage.

Full disclosure FWIW — assuming it was mandatory that we had to trade Miller (and I was not "down with that" idea), I was nevertheless immediately pleased with what we got in the trade, based on what I''d seen of Namestnikov previously, which was not much. To this day I am wondering how much was Miller traded because of AV's ass-hattery or because of Miller's ass-hattery? And how much does the ass-hattery matter considering how well Miller contributed in the playoffs on the Tampa top line? But that's grit and tenacity lost and we have to move on.

But after his initial goal scoring in the first game or two, it seemed like Namestnikov fell off a cliff; a really disappointing finish to the season compared with Spooner.

But I did my little bit of research and I reopened my mind to the possibility that we are getting a player with some good upside. I just hope the players around him are talented enough and flourish, too.

Your point about him becoming an asset to be flipped. I'm sure it's true, I just hate-hate-hate looking at things that sanguinely before we've even had dance around the ballroom. But it is what it is and, of course, you are right, that it is most likely the reality down the road apiece.

I guess I have to remember to get unsentimental and remember hockey is a business and I better beware of getting attached to some players, even if I wind up taking a liking to them.

That said, I read your article on Blueshirt Banter I think, in which you opined that NHL's free agency system is broken. The article was more centered on something else, and that seemed to be a side-theme, but I hope you will do a soup-to-nuts piece here on why you think it's broken and what can be done to fix it. I can't put my finger on the provisions of the NHL byelaws that are "fekking it up" specifically, but when I see so many players of youthful value becoming RFAs, and so few of them ever actually moving, I get cranky cranky cranky. It's like that sliver of hope is a mirage.

I like this kid, Blue. He has talent...he seems to have some heart too....let's see what he's got this year. I'm very curious to see a lot of these guys this season.

Yes Oz. The talent is there.

Do we have -- or can we put the right people around him? ... becomes the question for me. I'm not sure we have the players to bring out the best in him on a second line, say. And I'd hate to convert him to RW (although he does shoot lefty, which I like on the RW). Kreider seems like a natch, but Kreider is probably more likely to see time with Zibs and Buch.

This kid does best with strong finishers on his line, it seems. But what we have left — Vesey, Hayes, Fast, Zuccarello (did I forget anyone?) -- they all have to become better shoot-first players to make it work, or we'll be seeing passing "till the cows come home;" till the ice runs out; and till the goalie is completely unsurprised; and the angle too oblique for shyte to work. (I leave Spooner off that list as he's a passing center, IMO and not my first choice for Names line, but who knows, maybe that works?) (I also leave Chytil and Andersson off that list as they are centers and I didn't think they'd be a good first choice, but who knows maybe Chytil?)

But that procrastination, extra pass, squandering of the element of time and surprise, is a general malaise, even an acute sickness on this team that I hope Quinn is well aware of and addresses. Because it makes for unwatchable hockey and lost games, IMO.

I think you guys are right on the money, and Phil has the right idea as far as what's most likely going to happen. For the kid's sake I really hope we find some good complimentary players for him to work with. Spooner may just work...sometimes it's the most unlikely candidates that just click. But I agree with Phil that we're most likely going to be flipping this kid come a deadline somewhere along the line. We could get a really good return if we can get a solid year out of him.

Namestnikov is, in a lot of ways, the exact kind of player you want at his price tag on a rebuilding team entering year one. He's a work ethic prototype, even if the points won't accumulate the way they did running shotgun to Kucherov and Stamkos. And he's ultimately an asset to be flipped, either this year or next before he's UFA eligible. In the interim he can give you great effort, if not good results, which can hopefully have a spillover effect on the young pups.

I'd agree, if we knew he was an effort guy. He didn't give much after that first 4-5 games.

I guess. But things were always going well when he was in Tampa. Granted it's only 19 games, but he folded when things were going poorly. What happens if the Rangers are clearly a bad team, with no playoff hopes, in December? Is he going to pack it in again after 30 games?

I'm not a fan of guys whose effort fades when things aren't going well - frontrunners, if you will. And, small sample or not, that's exactly what he did last year, so I don't have a lot of hope that he isn't that type of player in general.

I guess. But things were always going well when he was in Tampa. Granted it's only 19 games, but he folded when things were going poorly. What happens if the Rangers are clearly a bad team, with no playoff hopes, in December? Is he going to pack it in again after 30 games?

I'm not a fan of guys whose effort fades when things aren't going well - frontrunners, if you will. And, small sample or not, that's exactly what he did last year, so I don't have a lot of hope that he isn't that type of player in general.

That's where I'm at with him. I expected a bit more from the guy. I understand the situation sucking for him to go from first to worst. But when Spooner was playing like his career was given another chance, while coming from a similar situation (playoff team with high expectations).... It just soured me on Namestnikov.

I do think the Rangers will try to get as much out of him as they can. I feel he will get tons of ice time and special teams roles on both the PK and PP. They will find the best use for him, in hoping he ups his trade value, or more likely to just be a stop gap with the hope he becomes the top six forward they need going forward. They have to. They don't have all that much stocked up at forward as far as prospects go. Giving him and maybe Spooner big roles are pretty much their only options.

He's getting a chance. New clean slate for everyone. Its all wait and see from here out.

Arbitration is looming. Skjei July 31st, Hayes Aug 2nd, Spooner Aug 4th. We should know a little better what the roster will look like within a week. It's sign or trade, right? I can't imagine they'll let it go to arbitration because the players may benefit monetarily in the short run. ?

Arbitration is looming. Skjei July 31st, Hayes Aug 2nd, Spooner Aug 4th. We should know a little better what the roster will look like within a week. It's sign or trade, right? I can't imagine they'll let it go to arbitration because the players may benefit monetarily in the short run. ?

They are in the driver's seat with Skjei as they have 3 more years of RFA control regardless of arbitration or not. I don't think you will see a trade there regardless of what happens. My guess is they are talking long term, but if they can't agree you will likely see a 2 year deal before it goes to arbitration. Skjei gets the benefit of having 2 years guaranteed, and the Rangers get the benefit of still having RFA control at the end of it.

Hayes/Spooner will be UFA eligible after a 1 year arbitration contract, so what happens with those guys is more telling about what the Rangers plan to do with them - in particular Hayes. I have to think it's either long term or trade for Kevin Hayes. They may not care about Spooner going to arbitration. Not sure they want him on more than a 1 year "show me" type deal anyway.

Disagree. Arbitration almost always splits the difference between the club and the player. They almost always deal out fair market value. It's an unhealthy process for the team and the player relationship but often times the parties come to an agreement the day of the hearing. There would be no time to make a trade, nor would it benefit the team in anyway. Trouba can play his year out and the team can easily move or resign him this season if they have to. RFA status exists for a reason and it's beneficial, mostly in the team's favor.